Wireless Access

Reply
New Contributor
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎10-12-2015

centralized licensing with ACTIVE-ACTIVE ccontrollers

Hi, i have a question about centralized licensing.

We have bulding 1 with one controller and building 2 with other controller, lan-to-lan link between those buildings. Both building have their own intternet link.

Licenses are installed only in controller in building 1 for the total number of APs in both buildings, so we need to use centralized licensing.

At this moment, APs in building 2 are registered in controller in building 1 (because ccontroller in building 2 is in standby mode), so there are many traffic in LAN-to-LAN link.

We want to explore an architecture where centralized licensing is maintained, but controller can work in active-active mode, so APs in building 1 registrer with controller 1, and APs in building 2 register in controller 2. Additionally, is desired that controllers should be backup for each other, if controller 1 fails, all APs in building 1 register in controller 2, and viceversa.

Is this architecture posible in Aruba?? i have experience with other manufaccturers and it is posible but Aruba documentation is a little confusing about that escenario. 

Guru Elite
Posts: 20,819
Registered: ‎03-29-2007

Re: centralized licensing with ACTIVE-ACTIVE ccontrollers

You make the controller in building 1 a master and the controller in building 2 a local controller.  If you turn on centralized licensing, they will automatically pool and share licenses.  You can make the APs in controller 1 find controller 1 by using  DHCP option 43 and 60 to point those access points to controller 1.  You can do the same with controller 2.   http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ArubaOS_64x_WebHelp/Web_Help_Index.htm#ArubaFrameStyles/DHCP_Option_43/Windows_Based_DHCP_Serve.htm#dhcp_option_43_3357486196_1050520

 



Colin Joseph
Aruba Customer Engineering

Looking for an Answer? Search the Community Knowledge Base Here: Community Knowledge Base

Search Airheads
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: